Skip to main content

About your Search

English 18
Search Results 0 to 17 of about 18 (some duplicates have been removed)
's why they've losten oh the debt ceiling on the fiscal cliff. the idea here that this is going to, you know, kind of sway the president with the republicans i don't think it's a matter of surveying him. i think it's a matter of him owning it and there's no unified response, it's only a win-win for him. cenk: interesting. patrick, it's a real interesting question as to what the progressives should want more. he made the point they are split at this point. a remove people call themselves progressives, but they're thought, they're just democrats. i want to show you some of the numbers on the chained c.p.i. and ask you where people should stand on this. social security cuts with the chained c.n.i. over oh 10 years is $112 billion in cuts. that's significant. over oh 12 years it costs you $1,272. that's going to hurt some folks. over 30 years you wind up losing $28,000 from your social security. now that's a long time, 30 years but obviously people are not happy about that on the progressive side. that's in the bowls simpson plan. the president cuts a lot from discretionary spending. what's
in washington. one crisis to another. when you come up against the debt ceiling and the fiscal cliff usually we put it off. but i think this is one that is going to cause tremendous damage and the question is with the congress gone for a week when do they have time to negotiate. >> $85 billion out of a $3.5 trillion budget. >> a small percentage but if it affects you. >> and this is going to hurt the economy? >> if you lose your job i think it hurts you don't you think? >> fundamentally the debt that we have at the moment is the bigger problem for the economy and job creation in the private sector. >> chris: let me binge karl in to talk about the sequester and look at the president's state of the union speech and agenda he laid out and what does that tell us about what he wants to do in his second term? >> spend a lot of money and pursue a lot of liberal social policies and says he is out of touch with the reality of where the country is. the democrats said we don't have a spending problem. 83% of the american people say we have a pending problem. i agree with kim. $85 billion cut is a 2.4% cut
. if you remember every time we have come up to whether it's the debt ceiling or first fiscal cliff, at the 11th hour, we had a deal. right now there is a deal in the works. there will be a deal. it will get done. by the way, i predict there will be a deal on entitlements before september. >> did you get that on your iphone prior to the show? >> no, no. i don't ever take talking point from them. but i just tell you, i know politics well enough, i think, to see the two people posturing themselves -- >> the thing is he's hoping the whole country will be under some kind of bizarre hypnosis and think we have money that we don't. >> you speak so negatively -- >> no, no. i do not. >> it's going to be fine.: >> i love this country and i think -- >> we have the ability to try and police ourselves a bit and t stop the wreckless spending and have the courage and fortitude to do so, we wouldn't be in the position we're s in.ou >> it's friday, let's pick it up. look good. >> coming up on "the five," an unbelievable shot. see, this is positive. at a basketball game, and itme wasn't made a by a p
's a level of brinks manship being played in congress. h.i.v. seen it over the debt ceiling. i've seen it over the fiscal cliff that is just unnecessary. there needs to be a lel of pragmatism back to our politics. i give a lot of credit to the president. he's not just saying let's raise taxes. he said the obvious, we in america cannot continue to spend more than we take in. it's something i don't have the luxury of as mayor doing. what i see the president doing is putting tremendous cuts on the table, trillions of dollars of cuts. you just heard the chief of staff say they're willing to put $4 trillion in cuts but it has to be in a balanced way. the challenge i see right now, if this happens, the sequester happens, the cuts will be blunt, brutal and mind as opposed to being intelligent and insightful. and it will not invest. it will stop us from investing in those critical areas in america we must invest on if we want long-term economic growth. >> schieffer: mr. mayor, let me ask you one thing, frank lautenber, the long-term senator from new jersey said he will not seek reelection. you
shutdown in april 2011, the debt ceiling showdown that summer, the fiscal cliff on new year's eve, and this -- i think -- and there will be another fight over government spending by the end of march. we have been seeing this for two years and maybe george will is right. most people saying, gosh, they are sorting it out and we'll ride it out. >> people need to understand that it is going to hit them in a really palpable way, i am looking at other departments. a nationwide shutdown of meat and poultry plants. furloughs, inspection personnel. will be pay higher prices? less beef and chicken? will it be safe? part of that is what the sequester is. you look at the latest pew poll, the public wide until favor of the president's approach on the sequester. on the other side, republicans, some tea partiers feel beholden to local constituents to not raise taxes another dime. does neither party have the incentive to resolve this quite quickly? >> that's a tough one, alex. the president and white house are counting on fact that they do have public support behind them. they say they don't look
. it was in the end game on the fiscal -- on the debt ceiling negotiations in 2011. literally july 27th, 2:30 in the afternoon, jack lew, who's in the white house chief of staff, rob neighbors, the head of congressional relations for president obama, went to see harry reid and proposed sequester. of course, everyone signed up to it, but it was designed to not happen. the cuts were perceived to be so draconian in domestic policy and in defense issues that no one would ever let this happen. it was the super committee, as you may remember, that was supposed to come up with more rational budget cuts. they failed. so we're stuck with -- it's kind of like being on a cruise ship with no power. >> where you have the captain and crew fighting each other and going around in circles. i don't get this, bob. you write this book about how the president and congress talk past each other. we have an election. we hear they might start talking together in a more positive sense. yet, here we have a situation that the defense industry hates, that advocates for the poor hate, that economists hate because you'r
in place, but questions about debt ceiling and other continuing resolution and other aspects of the federal fiscal situation which are very concerning and we think pose not only near-term threats to the travel business, but longer term threats to the economy if our political leaders can't get to an agreement. >> it shouldn't be this way. you are picking up in your industry from the brutality of the 2007-2008 downturn. you don't have supply for hotel rooms coming onstream. you should have really good pricing power at the moment. i see that in your negotiations for corporate customers, you expect to increase your room rates by high single digits. are you happy with that or had you hoped for more? >> no, i think -- the frustrating thing about this political situation in washington is business is really good and there are so many aspects of our economy which are not only good for our business, but show broad recovery. so our comp sales growth were up 8% in the month of january and we feel really good about the way that the year has started, which makes this doubly frustrating. the sequestration
ceiling fight coming up again in may. so there's a lot of uncertainty around fiscal policy, around government contracting of all kinds. so it's going to be a sort of rolling snowball effect, i might call it, where it gets bigger and bigger. and by may this may be the only thing we're talking about. >> richard, one could wonder at this point, what was the point of setting the sequester limit if now we're just figuring out ways to come up with a new deal? this was supposed to be the deal. this was supposed to be the thing that forced action. >> right. >> what was the point of it if we're not going to enforce it? >> that's a very good question. what was the point of it? the point of it was that people had crawled out on a limb, and they needed to come off it somehow. the very people who crawled out on that limb are now saying, how did we ever get here? you made me do it. it is ridiculous. and unfortunately, you know, what's that hillary clinton line that she used to use? the definition of madness is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result. just in ter
Search Results 0 to 17 of about 18 (some duplicates have been removed)